TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing Responsible Innovation Training
AU - Stahl, Bernd Carsten
AU - Aicardi, Christine
AU - Brooks, Laurence
AU - Craigon, Peter J.
AU - Cunden, Mayen
AU - Datta Burton, Saheli
AU - De Heaver, Martin
AU - De Saille, Stevienna
AU - Dolby, Serena
AU - Dowthwaite, Liz
AU - Eke, Damian
AU - Hugues, Stephen
AU - Keene, Paul
AU - Kuh, Vivienne
AU - Portillo, Virginia
AU - Shanley, Danielle
AU - Smallman, Melanie
AU - Smith, Michael
AU - Stilgoe, Jack
AU - Ulnicane, Inga
AU - Wagner, Christian
AU - Webb, Helena
PY - 2023/6/10
Y1 - 2023/6/10
N2 - There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.
AB - There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.
KW - responsible innovation
KW - doctoral training
KW - education
KW - assessment
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063
M3 - Editorial
SN - 2666-6596
JO - Journal of Responsible Technology
JF - Journal of Responsible Technology
ER -